The Perpetual Religion Thread

Edit: I've been challenged by the first couple of posters that there is no contention in my original post, and that's true. As a result, I'm hoping that we can take this a different direction.

There is no question that religion is a contentious topic in the 'Box. Instead of letting those religious arguments derail threads at an absurd rate (especially lately vis a vis Muslim Riots in the middle east), we can use this thread to contain those discussions in a hopefully constructive manner that will allow us to eliminate all the idiotic back and forth that makes other threads so painful to read (I fully admit I am a part of that problem). Like the SRB thread and the Democrat Problem thread and the Health Care thread this is a way to hold a long-running series of discussions about religion and its many facets.

This doesn't sound like a debate or like you are speaking your mind. This seems like a grab for attention, much like most of your posts.

So to keep this in topic, why do you believe that you deserve so much attention. If you want to hold a fucking AMA go see if Reddit wants you.

I'm sorry if my posts regarding religion in the past have seemed like I'm grasping for attention. That's not my goal.

There's no question that religious people are a minority in the 'Box -- both sociologically and statistically. In my experience, when minorities feel put upon, the best way to overcome those frustrations is to educate the majority that what they are doing is hurtful. This is why words like nigger and fag are no longer acceptable in polite company. The motivations are different, but the though process is the same. I'll preface what I say with the disclaimer that this is all my opinion, and it represents how I feel. No one else's opinions are reflected in these statements.

There's a lot of prejudice against religion in the Soap Box. There's more directed at Muslims than at Christians, and specifically Middle Eastern Muslims, but that doesn't mean it's not prejudice and that doesn't mean it's not bad. There's a lot of evidence for this statement on the front page of this form; it shouldn't be difficult to find. From what I see, there are a number of vocally atheist or agnostic posters here who have chosen a side and use broad generalizations to paint the others (whether those be Christians or Muslims or just religious people in general) as subhuman. This bleeds through when we have to honestly have conversations about whether religion constitutes child abuse or whether religious people are capable to raise children. It bleeds through more when I say things like "I'm really offended by the implication that I'm abusing my children by singing 'Jesus Loves Me' to them" and the immediate response is "I don't give a shit that you're offended". It's OK to disregard my feelings, because I'm irrational or brain damaged or brain washed or delusional or broken. I'm subhuman.

There's a larger cost to that kind of rhetoric, though. There's a narrative in conservative Christianity (most specifically, evangelical branches of the religion) that says that atheists aren't content with simply being nonreligious, but that they also need to convert religious adherents to atheism as well. They aren't content with live and let live, but instead seek to eradicate religion altogether. I don't believe that most atheists think we need to eliminate religion. I do believe there are some, and I believe some of those people post on the Soap Box. There are no two ways about this: eliminating religious freedom always requires bloodshed. What's more, by pushing toward the elimination of religion, one creates a natural response among the religious to push further toward fundamentalism and removal from society at large. At least some of the growth of the Religious Right and the corresponding "Christian Nation" nonsense in the US is a direct response to the feelings of lost majority among evangelical Christians. I'm the first to rail against the politicization of religion, but when atheists make statements condemning all religion and degrading those who believe it, you reinforce the idea that Christianity is under attack.

There's a narrative in conservative Christianity (most specifically, evangelical branches of the religion) that says that atheists aren't content with simply being nonreligious, but that they also need to convert religious adherents to atheism as well.

That narrative, while popular among certain religious groups, is no more accurate than claims that the homosexual agenda seeks to indoctrinate and recruit children into a deviant lifestyle. It's a poorly disguised persecution complex, coming from a group of people who have no right whatsoever to feel persecuted.

Quote:

They aren't content with live and let live, but instead seek to eradicate religion altogether. I don't believe that most atheists think we need to eliminate religion. I do believe there are some, and I believe some of those people post on the Soap Box.

It is increasingly difficult to accept a "live and let live" point of view with respect to Christianity (and Judaism to a lesser extent) in the United States. It is Christians who perpetuate this cultural conflict. They're the ones who refuse to let others live as they want. They demonize their enemies in every form of media possible. Atheists, homosexuals, Muslims, and other minority groups are repeatedly targetted and classified as sub-human. I cannot begin to count the number of times I have been told, either to my face or through radio/television/the Internet that I am a deviant who should be put in jail and have my kids taken away from me. All because I choose to love my husband.

Quote:

I'm the first to rail against the politicization of religion, but when atheists make statements condemning all religion and degrading those who believe it, you reinforce the idea that Christianity is under attack.

Only if said Christian is a thin-skinned retard. I'm not going to pull my punches there. If a Christian truly believes that his religion is under attack then s/he is mentally handicapped. There are hundreds of mega-churches, Christianity brings in billions of dollars, the vast majority of people in this country are Christian, every president and almost every politician since this country has been founded have been Christians.

Your faith does not get to cry about persecution after the groups that have been persecuted by your faith for centuries finally say enough is enough.

TS: I'm certainly not advancing those views. You're right that Christians are the ones perpetuating the culture wars. I'm not going to disagree with you there, and in fact I'm working to fight my own little fight against those culture wars with my friends and family. The idea that I would wish to advance here is that just because I take the mantle Christian doesn't mean that I too am culpable for those culture wars. Instead, the better alternative is to dispose of the labels altogether, and examine the desired decisions of people directly.

Your last comment smacks of a bit of hypocrisy, though. Just because a group holds a position of social power in certain circles doesn't mean that they aren't oppressed in other circles. There's no question that Christians are oppressed in majority Muslim countries. Ditto some parts of China. Finding myself in a majority social position in the United States proper doesn't mean that I'm not a minority in the Soap Box. Injustice can strike no matter the size of the oppressing group, and we should endeavor to stamp it out wherever we find it. The correct response to injustice by one group is not to perpetuate the same injustices upon them in return.

How can religious people act like victims to the secular when you so out number us? How?

I'm not sure where your question is going? As I've said, in the Soap Box, the religious are a numerical and sociological minority. The population of the 'Box doesn't appear to be particularly representative of the US as a whole.

How can religious people act like victims to the secular when you so out number us? How?

I'm not sure where your question is going? As I've said, in the Soap Box, the religious are a numerical and sociological minority. The population of the 'Box doesn't appear to be particularly representative of the US as a whole.

Right but the "box" is not a real place. It's an internet site you visit. Ok so you chose to come here. Why? To participate in intelligent debate. Maybe if you're in the minority here- take pause. Maybe you are just wrong.

Your last comment smacks of a bit of hypocrisy, though. Just because a group holds a position of social power in certain circles doesn't mean that they aren't oppressed in other circles. There's no question that Christians are oppressed in majority Muslim countries. Ditto some parts of China.

True and lamentable. However they are not who I am addressing in my post and they have nothing to do with Christianity in the United States.

Quote:

Finding myself in a majority social position in the United States proper doesn't mean that I'm not a minority in the Soap Box. Injustice can strike no matter the size of the oppressing group, and we should endeavor to stamp it out wherever we find it.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that having your religious beliefs challenged by posters in the Soap Box is in some way similar to the plight of Christian minorities outside of the United States?

Tell me, when is the last time you had the cops called on you when you tried to pray? When's the last time your were assaulted for kissing your partner in public? When's the last time you were denied service for having the gall to pray in an "un-Christian manner" at the restaurant?

I can put a date to each one, and each time it was a Chrisian who was persecuting me. Many, if not most, of the atheist posters here can probably relate similar experiences. So why should I care about you being picked on here?

Edit: And I'm religious! I have nothing but respect for SirEverlast's faith. My own faith is questioned regularly by the denizens of the Bad Place. By all rights I should be on your side here.

How can religious people act like victims to the secular when you so out number us? How?

The loss of privilege is surprising and painful.

People also tend to react very differently when their conclusions are questioned over irrational matters vs. rational ones. Nobody tends to lose their shit if you point out a flaw in the calculus equation they just did or the CAT-5 end they just crimped or the story they just wrote. They do however tend to lose their shit when you point out a flaw in their religious dogma or other real superstition-based belief. It doesn't even need to be religious based; I've seen more people snap back and bitch ways when someone gives them crap about their lucky sports jersey or goofy superstitious bowling ritual than I have someone pointing out a flaw in their blueprint or computer program.

People don't take well to having their irrational beliefs questioned nearly as well as they do their rational ones.

It bleeds through more when I say things like "I'm really offended by the implication that I'm abusing my children by singing 'Jesus Loves Me' to them" and the immediate response is "I don't give a shit that you're offended". It's OK to disregard my feelings, because I'm irrational or brain damaged or brain washed or delusional or broken.

Take the first sentence above and replace religion in it with Time Cube or flat earth theory or 911 trutherism or fake moon landing-er-ism-ness and you'd react the same way. But when it's your own silly superstition suddenly people not giving a shit if your feelings are hurt over making fun of the fairy tales you still believe in becomes a big deal.

Understand this; your religion may be s special, beautiful snowflake to you, but not everyone things so. Plenty think it is just as silly as believing in a hollow earth and view it through that lens. That isn't to say people shouldn't perhaps be nicer to one other for a whole host of reasons, but don't confuse having some bias against or dislike of crazy, irrational beliefs with a bias against or dislike of Christianity (or whatever religion is being discussed).

People don't take well to having their irrational beliefs questioned nearly as well as they do their rational ones.

In fairness, there are those who are a bit more abrasive than others when it comes to questioning people's beliefs. It's one thing to ask why someone believes the way they do, it's another to insinuate that the person is brain-damaged while at the same time challenging their beliefs.

It's something else entirely to play the persecution/oppression card because someone in the Box was mean.

It bleeds through more when I say things like "I'm really offended by the implication that I'm abusing my children by singing 'Jesus Loves Me' to them" and the immediate response is "I don't give a shit that you're offended". It's OK to disregard my feelings, because I'm irrational or brain damaged or brain washed or delusional or broken.

Take the first sentence above and replace religion in it with Time Cube or flat earth theory or 911 trutherism or fake moon landing-er-ism-ness and you'd react the same way. But when it's your own silly superstition suddenly people not giving a shit if your feelings are hurt over making fun of the fairy tales you still believe in becomes a big deal.

Understand this; your religion may be s special, beautiful snowflake to you, but not everyone things so. Plenty think it is just as silly as believing in a hollow earth and view it through that lens. That isn't to say people shouldn't perhaps be nicer to one other for a whole host of reasons, but don't confuse having some bias against or dislike of crazy, irrational beliefs with a bias against or dislike of Christianity (or whatever religion is being discussed).

I'm certainly not going to argue that viewed through a lens of rationality, Christianity is defensible. It's not, I'm more than willing to admit that. What I am arguing is that responses like the one I detailed serve to dehumanize the "other" the same way that racism or homophobia or any other form of prejudice do. I'm arguing that we shouldn't be dehumanizing anyone, least of all here, a place which is ostensibly devoted to debate and discourse and not the pursuit of a singular political purpose. Please don't put words in my mouth about how I'd react if confronted with someone who wanted to teach their kid moon landing fakes or 9/11 trutherisms.

Your last comment smacks of a bit of hypocrisy, though. Just because a group holds a position of social power in certain circles doesn't mean that they aren't oppressed in other circles. There's no question that Christians are oppressed in majority Muslim countries. Ditto some parts of China.

True and lamentable. However they are not who I am addressing in my post and they have nothing to do with Christianity in the United States.

Quote:

Finding myself in a majority social position in the United States proper doesn't mean that I'm not a minority in the Soap Box. Injustice can strike no matter the size of the oppressing group, and we should endeavor to stamp it out wherever we find it.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that having your religious beliefs challenged by posters in the Soap Box is in some way similar to the plight of Christian minorities outside of the United States?

Tell me, when is the last time you had the cops called on you when you tried to pray? When's the last time your were assaulted for kissing your partner in public? When's the last time you were denied service for having the gall to pray in an "un-Christian manner" at the restaurant?

I can put a date to each one, and each time it was a Chrisian who was persecuting me. Many, if not most, of the atheist posters here can probably relate similar experiences. So why should I care about you being picked on here?

Edit: And I'm religious! I have nothing but respect for SirEverlast's faith. My own faith is questioned regularly by the denizens of the Bad Place. By all rights I should be on your side here.

I'm sorry that those things happened to you. I don't want them to happen to anyone. I certainly wouldn't suggest that being called a child abuser on the Soap Box is similar to being arrested for kissing someone in public. However, I would suggest that the underlying thought patterns are similar: it's a desire to marginalize the other -- whether through words or through arrests. To express the idea that "We don't want you here." I'm 100% on board with criticizing Christianity in a calm, thoughtful manner. I'm trying to express that when those criticisms jump from calm, thoughtful and rational to rhetorical and virulent, it goes from constructive to hurtful, and when I express that I might be hurt over the way a poster has expressed a point, and I'm told my feelings don't matter, it becomes dramatically more hurtful.

From my experiences with Secular Humanists on the 'Box, too often it seems that Secular Humanism replaces the dogma of the deity with the dogma of the non-deity, and disagreement or apostasy are treated with equal derision by both groups. To me, a huge part of the point of classical liberalism is embracing diversity in all its forms, celebrating that diversity, and living together in peace. Derision of religion no matter the outcome of said religion works counter to that fact.

There's a larger cost to that kind of rhetoric, though. There's a narrative in conservative Christianity (most specifically, evangelical branches of the religion) that says that atheists aren't content with simply being nonreligious, but that they also need to convert religious adherents to atheism as well. They aren't content with live and let live, but instead seek to eradicate religion altogether. I don't believe that most atheists think we need to eliminate religion. I do believe there are some, and I believe some of those people post on the Soap Box. There are no two ways about this: eliminating religious freedom always requires bloodshed.

There's a pretty massive leap between "eradicate religion through reasonable discussion" and "eradicate religion by killing people." Atheists are out to attack religion the way mainstream medicine is out to attack homeopathy.

Religions are under attack from atheists; logical attack. This kind of logical attack is not at all in conflict with religious freedom. The religions of the world claim it is, because the religions of the world are losing their privileged position.

I have little sympathy for the overwhelmingly vast majority's cries of oppression from a tiny minority, especially when the form of that oppression is not violence or disenfranchisement but rather frank discussion.

There's a larger cost to that kind of rhetoric, though. There's a narrative in conservative Christianity (most specifically, evangelical branches of the religion) that says that atheists aren't content with simply being nonreligious, but that they also need to convert religious adherents to atheism as well. They aren't content with live and let live, but instead seek to eradicate religion altogether. I don't believe that most atheists think we need to eliminate religion. I do believe there are some, and I believe some of those people post on the Soap Box. There are no two ways about this: eliminating religious freedom always requires bloodshed.

There's a pretty massive leap between "eradicate religion through reasonable discussion" and "eradicate religion by killing people." Atheists are out to attack religion the way mainstream medicine is out to attack homeopathy.

Religions are under attack from atheists; logical attack. This kind of logical attack is not at all in conflict with religious freedom. The religions of the world claim it is, because the religions of the world are losing their privileged position.

I have little sympathy for the overwhelmingly vast majority's cries of oppression from a tiny minority, especially when the form of that oppression is not violence or disenfranchisement but rather frank discussion.

I agree. The point I'm making is that aggressive rhetoric like religious people are child abusers or brain damaged serves to perpetuate that meme. I'm all for logic and disagreement over religion. Five out of six people on the face of this earth think that Christianity is false. My problem is with the angry rhetoric and name calling that seems to have become par for the course for a small number of Soap Box posters. Posts like that at their face reasoned discussion out the window, because posts like that are designed to inflame and degrade the people they're targeted at.

Prejudice - pre judgement - would be reaching conclusions without evidence. I would say the prevailing attitude here is exasperation with the overwhelming conclusion that, at long last, we are forced to confront religion or leave ourselves at its mercy. We're probably 30 years late with this realization WRT the current evangelical movement in the west, so forgive me if I don't consider it premature.

SituationSoap wrote:

There's a larger cost to that kind of rhetoric, though. There's a narrative in conservative Christianity (most specifically, evangelical branches of the religion) that says that atheists aren't content with simply being nonreligious, but that they also need to convert religious adherents to atheism as well.

Here's the thing.

They've tried to inject their religion into public policy. That makes it a legitimate target of criticism. Not that it wouldn't have been anyway, but there's unimpeachable public interest when it's a question of public policy.

If persuading people that these policies are foolish looks a lot like persuading people their religion is foolish, and indeed has the impact of causing people to leave their religion, then I guess it's unfortunate that christians were operating under the misapprehension that they're the only ones that get to try to persuade. Their preachers are going to foster the siege mentality either way, might as well actually try to persuade people.

I think the really dangerous fact here is that it's working. A recent survey puts atheism at 5% in the US, up from 1% in 2005. E: Linky - see table 4. People identifying as religious are way down, and people identifying as atheist are up 5x.

The siege mentality is understandable, but as obnoxious as it is I think it serves the secular cause rather well. It inspires the fundies to further heights of inanity, which is possibly the most effective publicity for atheism. And it results in the next generation being brought up with an extremely brittle faith that can brook no compromise, which is works for some, but causes others to defect outright, particularly when atheists have a broad public presence.

I think the real victims here are the people that thought they could have extremely liberal christianity where you only have to deal with it at christmas and easter but have evolution and birth control and homosexuality the rest of the time. That crowd is either going full evangelical or full atheist.

The issue at hand seems to be the callous behavior of a few individuals, which is on par with any Internet forum. There will always be those incapable of having a reasonable conversation about any topic. Granted in this case they tend to be more antagonistic when religion is brought up.

I do not, however, see it as a trend. There's nothing to suggest to me that secularists in the U.S. seek to de-humanize members of any religion. Some may be quite vocal, especially when religion is seen to intrude on public policy, but they're not interested in classifying random John C. Catholic as a second-class citizen worthy only of derision.

What I do see is the following:

Catholic Bishop: Gays and atheists are immoral agents of Satan seeking to undermine America.Gays and atheists: Says the guy in a dress whose church has gone to great lengths to cover up repeated acts of sexual misconduct with minors.Catholics: STOP ATTACKING US! WE'RE BEING PERSECUTED!

One of these groups is engaging in the deliberate persecution of minorities, with the goal of de-humanizing those involved. Hint: it's not the gays or the atheists.

There's a pretty massive leap between "eradicate religion through reasonable discussion" and "eradicate religion by killing people." Atheists are out to attack religion the way mainstream medicine is out to attack homeopathy.

Religions are under attack from atheists; logical attack. This kind of logical attack is not at all in conflict with religious freedom. The religions of the world claim it is, because the religions of the world are losing their privileged position.

I have little sympathy for the overwhelmingly vast majority's cries of oppression from a tiny minority, especially when the form of that oppression is not violence or disenfranchisement but rather frank discussion.

I agree. The point I'm making is that aggressive rhetoric like religious people are child abusers or brain damaged serves to perpetuate that meme. I'm all for logic and disagreement over religion. Five out of six people on the face of this earth think that Christianity is false. My problem is with the angry rhetoric and name calling that seems to have become par for the course for a small number of Soap Box posters. Posts like that at their face reasoned discussion out the window, because posts like that are designed to inflame and degrade the people they're targeted at.

The argument can be made that homeopathic medicine is child abuse and brain damaged. If you want reasonable arguments to be censored simply because the implications of such arguments are harsh, you're shit out of luck

Throughout the history of mankind, the theists have been able to cultivate a credible threat against the atheists if the atheists spoke without censorship. Now in the age of the internet, the theists can no longer cultivate that threat, and so instead flail about complaining that the atheists should keep censoring themselves anyway. But we will not. You can no longer force reason to kneel before unreason and lavish it with privilege. We have entered an age where religion has to stand on it's own merits same as anything else.

As a Christian living in a relatively liberal part of the country (the Northeast), I would agree Christianity, or religion in general, is not "under attack".

I will say however, that many Internet communities I've been part of, especially, but not solely, those that are of an intellectual, technical, geeky, etc. nature are quite unfriendly and/or are quite overtly disrespectful to religion. Ars Technica included.

Also seems the technical fields are very much athiest/agnostic vs. other fields. With the exception of Indians (mostly Hindu?) who are ubiquitous in IT these days, my observation has been that there is a strong bias in tech workers to be athiest. Vs. other fields, or even other departments within the same company that seem to have a greater representation of the religious.

I will say however, that many Internet communities I've been part of, especially, but not solely, those that are of an intellectual, technical, geeky, etc. nature are quite unfriendly and/or are quite overtly disrespectful to religion. Ars Technica included.

Give one reason why religion should be respected. Not you as an individual, but your religion. Why should I, a member of both a religious and a sexual minority that is consistently under attack by Christianity, give that religion an ounce of respect? Why should any atheist in the United States who has experienced persecution from the religious majority do the same?

That's the issue. They shouldn't. Your religion doesn't deserve respect. Neither does mine. You might. I might. And it would be a better world if we all treated each other respectfully as individuals. But saying that I should respect Christianity as an institution is laughable.

For example: I respect SirEverlast as an individual. We have obvious political differences, but in general we can have a respectful dialog. I respect his individual faith, even though we have different religious views. I do not, in any way, respect the Catholic Church. Nor should I. It's an institution that spends millions denigrating me and my family on TV and radio. They disrespect my faith, they disrespect my partner, they disrespect my children. I'm not going to extend them any measure of respect or deference

I will say however, that many Internet communities I've been part of, especially, but not solely, those that are of an intellectual, technical, geeky, etc. nature are quite unfriendly and/or are quite overtly disrespectful to religion. Ars Technica included.

Give one reason why religion should be respected. Not you as an individual, but your religion. Why should I, a member of both a religious and a sexual minority that is consistently under attack by Christianity, give that religion an ounce of respect? Why should any atheist in the United States who has experienced persecution from the religious majority do the same?

That's the issue. They shouldn't. Your religion doesn't deserve respect. Neither does mine. You might. I might. And it would be a better world if we all treated each other respectfully as individuals. But saying that I should respect Christianity as an institution is laughable.

For example: I respect SirEverlast as an individual. We have obvious political differences, but in general we can have a respectful dialog. I respect his individual faith, even though we have different religious views. I do not, in any way, respect the Catholic Church. Nor should I. It's an institution that spends millions denigrating me and my family on TV and radio. They disrespect my faith, they disrespect my partner, they disrespect my children. I'm not going to extend them any measure of respect or deference

I would argue that the original assertion requires additional resolution. What does it mean to respect a religion? Does it mean that you respect the entire belief system? That's pretty tough -- Christianity has a wide range of beliefs, including some that are contradictory (especially the catholic/protestant divide). Does it mean that you respect the institutions? Like you said, there are many Christian institutions that don't deserve respect.

Arguing that Ars Technica doesn't respect religion (which is an even more nebulous term than Christianity) is a tough row to hoe, because disrespecting religion is a fundamentally impossible action to define.

People don't take well to having their irrational beliefs questioned nearly as well as they do their rational ones.

In fairness, there are those who are a bit more abrasive than others when it comes to questioning people's beliefs. It's one thing to ask why someone believes the way they do, it's another to insinuate that the person is brain-damaged while at the same time challenging their beliefs.

That may be true, but with perhaps the exception of Doomlord those abrasive questions have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with questioning something crazy, a category to which quite a few feel religion belongs. They're just as abrasive when it comes to questioning other crazy things. See the recent fringe Libertarian thread nuttery for such an example.

I don't look at believing in unicorns any differently than I look at believing the Bible to be factual. Yet people who would have no problem seeing abrasive questions as a unicorn believer as simply abrasive questions directed towards a crazy belief then turn around and see abrasive questions towards religion to be anti-religious.

People don't take well to having their irrational beliefs questioned nearly as well as they do their rational ones.

In fairness, there are those who are a bit more abrasive than others when it comes to questioning people's beliefs. It's one thing to ask why someone believes the way they do, it's another to insinuate that the person is brain-damaged while at the same time challenging their beliefs.

That may be true, but with perhaps the exception of Doomlord those abrasive questions have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with questioning something crazy, a category to which quite a few feel religion belongs. They're just as abrasive when it comes to questioning other crazy things. See the recent fringe Libertarian thread nuttery for such an example.

People don't take well to having their irrational beliefs questioned nearly as well as they do their rational ones.

In fairness, there are those who are a bit more abrasive than others when it comes to questioning people's beliefs. It's one thing to ask why someone believes the way they do, it's another to insinuate that the person is brain-damaged while at the same time challenging their beliefs.

That may be true, but with perhaps the exception of Doomlord those abrasive questions have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with questioning something crazy, a category to which quite a few feel religion belongs. They're just as abrasive when it comes to questioning other crazy things. See the recent fringe Libertarian thread nuttery for such an example.

Being an equal opportunity asshole does not excuse being an asshole.

And only caring or taking offense when that assholish behavior is directed towards your (not necessarily you personally) sacred cow is just as inexcusable.

Besides, some beliefs deserve nothing less than an asshole response. See pretty much the entire concept of Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum.

I'm certainly not going to argue that viewed through a lens of rationality, Christianity is defensible. It's not, I'm more than willing to admit that. What I am arguing is that responses like the one I detailed serve to dehumanize the "other" the same way that racism or homophobia or any other form of prejudice do.

Nonsense. If I tear into some Time Cube douche it's got nothing to do with dehumanizing the "other" and everything to do with ridiculing a stupid belief that deserves nothing less than ridicule. You simply don't agree with some people that your unique snowflake of a religion falls into that same category.

That's fine. You're totally welcome to think that, and you're totally welcome to argue back against anyone who does. But at least try to understand that the reason they are behaving they way they do isn't due to some attempt to dehumanize you or due to some bizarre hatred of your magic book, but instead because that's kind of the natural reaction when faced with the fact that you in their mind believe in the equivalent of Hobbits.

Quote:

Please don't put words in my mouth about how I'd react if confronted with someone who wanted to teach their kid moon landing fakes or 9/11 trutherisms.

Besides, some beliefs deserve nothing less than an asshole response. See pretty much the entire concept of Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum.

I agree that Santorum, and especially Bachmann are bat shit insane, I struggle with this point of view, and here's why. You're right that there's simply not useful response to people like that. But when you accept the idea that those people can acceptably be dismissed with an asshole response, then you start inching that line forward. First, it's just OK to be an asshole to Michelle Bachmann. Then it's OK to be an asshole to anyone who agrees with her. Then it's OK to be an asshole to anyone who votes the same as her on legislation. Then it's OK to be an asshole to anyone who shares her party.

I realize that's the definition of a slippery slope argument, but on the flip side it's basically the story of how Republicans have justified the degradation of political discourse in the United States in the last forty years or so. I honestly don't know how to rectify my feelings about Bachmann and my feelings about how important maintaining intelligent discourse that doesn't just degrade into each side attempting to out-asshole each other as quickly as humanly possible.

I agree that Santorum, and especially Bachmann are bat shit insane, I struggle with this point of view, and here's why. You're right that there's simply not useful response to people like that. But when you accept the idea that those people can acceptably be dismissed with an asshole response, then you start inching that line forward. First, it's just OK to be an asshole to Michelle Bachmann. Then it's OK to be an asshole to anyone who agrees with her. Then it's OK to be an asshole to anyone who votes the same as her on legislation. Then it's OK to be an asshole to anyone who shares her party.

I agree at least to a degree. I did mention a few posts back that there is a whole host of reasons people (myself included and perhaps especially) would be well served to be more polite.